Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Pepper v. Peacher

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided July 21, 1987No. 62361Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKauger, Justice

I agree with the majority that the Oklahoma Teacher’s Retirement System’s (OTRS) designation of beneficiary does not meet the definition of a will as outlined in Miller v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 637 P.2d 75, 77 (Okla.1981), thus bringing the designation within 84 O.S. 1981 § 114.1 I also agree that the trial court erred in ruling as a matter of law that the appellant, Pepper, could not reasonably believe that his claim to the OTRS funds would prevail2 — whether Pepper held a reasonable belief in a reasonably doubtful claim must be resolved by the trier of fact. However, I am troubled…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Leonard v. CountsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1980
  2. Cacy v. CacySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1980
  3. In Re Estate of WilsonIllinois Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Sullivan v. Union Oil Co. of Cal.California Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Catron v. First National Bank & Trust Co. of TulsaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1967

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API